A.M. No. P-1623. October 9, 1979.
JULIETA P. DALISAY, complainant, vs. EUCLIDES DALISAY, respondent.

FACTS

Julieta P. Dalisay filed a verified complaint charging her husband, Euclides Dalisay, a court stenographer, with immorality. The complaint alleged they were married in 1970 and had a son. In early 1972, respondent abandoned his family to cohabit with another woman, Salome Lumod, and failed to provide support. Despite executing a mutual agreement in November 1972 wherein respondent promised to leave Lumod and return to his wife, and Lumod promised to cease contact, respondent breached this undertaking.
The evidence presented during the investigation, which included the marriage contract, birth certificate of their son, and the mutual agreement, established that respondent continued his illicit relationship with Lumod after 1972. This cohabitation resulted in the birth of three children. Complainant also proved respondent’s failure to support her and their legitimate son. After the complainant rested her case, respondent, through counsel, waived his right to present evidence and submitted the case for resolution based solely on the complainant’s evidence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Euclides Dalisay is guilty of the administrative charge of immorality warranting dismissal from the service.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is guilty of immorality and is ordered dismissed from service. The Supreme Court affirmed the findings and recommendation of the investigating judge. The legal logic is grounded on the stringent ethical standards required of court personnel, who are expected to uphold the law and morality both in their official duties and private conduct. Respondent’s actions constituted gross immorality, which is detrimental to the integrity of the judiciary.
The Court found the complainant’s evidence, which was uncontroverted due to respondent’s waiver of his right to present counter-evidence, to be clear and convincing. The proof of abandonment, adulterous cohabitation resulting in illegitimate children, and the breach of a written agreement to cease the illicit relationship demonstrated a pattern of conduct unbecoming a public servant. Furthermore, his failure to fulfill his legal duty to support his lawful wife and child compounded his misconduct. Such behavior erodes public respect for the courts and constitutes a violation of the trust reposed in a court employee. The penalty of dismissal with forfeiture of benefits and disqualification from re-employment in government was deemed appropriate to preserve the judiciary’s integrity.